Abstract
Employing a psychological lens and using the “I”-Window as a port of entry, this essay focuses on uncovering the internal profile of Daniel through his first-person visionary report (Dan 7–12). Incorporating a three-world reading strategy, I intentionally foreground the juxtaposition between the world of the text and the world in front of the text (the community of pastors). The idea of cognitive dissonance emerges as I compare the “private Daniel” with the “public Daniel” through textual construction. As a demonstrated example of the “empirics” of engaging text emotively, I seek to appropriate the internal turmoil of Daniel as a result of the impact of the exotic visionary experience upon him to the vulnerability of the pastoral vocation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to Hsu (1985), the autonomy of the self is not recognized in traditional Chinese culture. The Chinese “self” can be described as both interdependent and sociocentric (or situation-centered).
I refer to places where the character speaks in the first person singular voice. In the “Abstract” of F. Landy’s (2000) article on Isaiah, the author states that “if vision suggests clarity and exteriority, voice evokes the interiority of the person, and an intimation beyond the horizon” (p. 36). The same contradicted and paradoxical elements are found in Daniel 7–12, where both visions and the “I” voice of Daniel are present. The exteriority of Daniel’s seeing/perceiving and the interiority of Daniel’s feelings are paradoxically interwoven.
Commentaries in the past decades represented a core interpretive interest in the interpretation of the exotic visions in the later part of the book. While the more recent works on Daniel exhibit a conscious attention to applying the collective message of the chapters to the postmodern human and ecclesiastical life, this aspect of Daniel’s inner life is totally absent in the discussion. E.g., Seow (2002); Gowan (2001); Longman III (1999).
All major commentaries on Daniel have dealt with the authorship and dating issue of the book (see n. 3). With respect to dating, Daniel is dated as early as the 6th century B.C. and as late as the 2nd century B.C.
This aspect resembles the traditional Chinese ideology of the harmony and interconnectedness of the individual (the “small-self”) in relation to nation/country (the “big-self”).
This inquiry is of strategic importance to my study here. If I look at the self as the signature of an inner being and the subject matter of this study as the Danielic internal profile, only when the existence of the self-concept can be established in the world behind the text can I ascertain that I am not reading something foreign into the text.
Contra Di Vito’s (1999) conclusion that “inner depths,” which marks a person as unique, is a completely foreign idea to the Hebrew mind (pp. 217–238).
In a way, this process could be referred to as “a hermeneutics of hearing” (Snodgrass 2002, pp. 1–32). On the function of a text, Snodgrass explains further that “a hermeneutics of hearing listens for what the author [speaker] seeks to accomplish, his or her communicative intent, the illocutionary act accomplished by the word” (p. 18).
חזה הוית וארו or the variant (e.g. 12.5 “Then I, Daniel, looked. And behold…” [וראיתי אני דניאל והנה]).
7.2, 4–5, 6, 7, 9, 11 (twice), 13, 21; 8.2, 3, 4–5; 10.5, 7, 8–10; 12.5.
Gadamer (1975, p. 289; cited in Brown 1998, p. 47) has long been an advocate of this view. He affirms the centrality of appropriation in that in order to understand the ancient text, the interpreter “must not seek to disregard himself and his particular hermeneutical situation. He must relate the text to his situation if he wants to understand at all.”
References
Aune, D. E., & McCarthy, J. (1997). The whole and the divided self: The Bible and theological anthropology. New York: Crossroad.
Brett, M. G. (1990). Four or five things to do with texts: A taxonomy of interpretive interests. In D. J. A. Clines, et al. (Ed.), The Bible in three dimensions: Essays in celebration of forty years of biblical studies in the university of Sheffield (pp. 357–77). Sheffield: JSOT.
Brown, S. (1998). Text and psyche: Experiencing scripture today. New York: Continuum.
Capps, D. (1998). The whole and divided self: the Bible and theological anthropology. Theology Today, 55, 470–474.
Christianson, E. S. (1998). A time to tell: Narrative strategies in Ecclesiastes. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Crenshaw, J. L. (1988). Ecclesiastes. London: SCM.
Davies, P. R. (2002). First person: Essays in biblical autobiography. London: Sheffield Academic.
Di Vito, R. A. (1999). Old Testament anthropology and the construction of personal identity. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 61, 217–28.
Ellens, J. H. (2002a). Guest editorial. Pastoral Psychology, 51, 97–99.
Ellens, J. H. (2002b). Psychological aspects of biblical apocalypticism. Pastoral Psychology, 51, 157–163.
Fewell, D. N. (1991). Circle of sovereignty. Nashville: Abington.
Fox, M. (1989). Qohelet. Sheffield: Almond.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury.
Goldingay, J. (1989). Daniel. Dallas: Word.
Gowan, D. E. (2001). Daniel. Nashville: Abingdon.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp. 24–55). New York: Tavistock.
Hupka, R. B., Zaleski, Z., Otto, J., Reidl, L., Tarabrina, N. V., et al. (1996). Anger, envy, fear, and jealousy as felt in the body: a five-nation study. Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 243–264.
Johnson, A. R. (1992). Vitality of the individual in the thought of ancient Israel (2nd ed.). Garden City: Doubleday.
Kille, A. D. (2002a). Psychological biblical criticism. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Kille, A. D. (2002b). Psychology and the bible: three worlds of the text. Pastoral Psychology, 51, 125–133.
Kitamori, K. (1965). Theology of the pain of God. Richmond: John Knox.
Landy, F. (2000). Vision and voice in Isaiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 88, 19–36.
Levenson, J. D. (1988). The eighth principle of Judaism and the literary simultaneity of Scripture. Journal of Religion, 68, 205–225.
Longman III, T. (1999). Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Rollins, W. G. (1999). Soul and psyche: The Bible in psychological perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Seitz, C. R. (1999). Isaiah and the search for a new paradigm. In M. Zyniewicz (Ed.), The Papers of Henry Luce III Fellows in Theology: Vol. 3 (pp. 87–114). Atlanta: Scholars.
Seow, C. L. (2002). Daniel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Smith, J. Z. (1996). The HarperCollins dictionary of religion. London: HarperCollins.
Smith, M. S. (1998). The heart and innards in Israelite emotional expressions: Notes from anthropology and psychology. Journal of Biblical Literature, 117, 427–436.
Snodgrass, K. (2002). Reading to hear: A hermeneutics of hearing. Horizons in Biblical Theology, 24, 1–32.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leung Lai, B.M. Aspirant Sage or Dysfunctional Seer? Cognitive Dissonance and Pastoral Vulnerability in the Profile of Daniel. Pastoral Psychol 57, 199–210 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0150-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0150-1